First, I like the format. This might seem superficial, but not having any glaring typographical anomalies, actually conforming with style for the district, having footnotes clickable and the table of contents and authorities actually cited correctly is important.
My main objection is the weakness of the public figure argument, based solely on the admissibility of evidence supposedly relied on by the trial court. Evidentiary arguments are always weak and decisions about admission always considered within the discretion of the trial court. Notably, though, the argument about the defamation claims focuses almost exclusively on what would be relevant to an actual malice standard.
Otherwise, the brief is well organized and follows the rule that one should lead with one's strongest points and then take them in order of descending strength.
A really minor quibble is mentioning a Discord server and then not defining what that is, although maybe the exhibit explains it more, and also that it's a trademarked term and should be capitalized, although this really doesn't matter in the least.
The conspiracy argument is interesting and was not made in the court below. However, appeals courts in Texas generally do not disregard arguments in a TCPA case on that basis. In fact, the inability to present arguments because of the shambolic nature of Chupp's judging, leading to a confused record, is part of the problem. It is a yeoman's effort to make a prima facie case out of a fairly weak claim. While such a case can be based on circumstantial evidence, at least at the pleading stage, it's certainly not as easy as when there's direct evidence of it.
At this point the defendants have to essentially do all the work Chupp didn't do to set up a defense... This case is more entertaining that it has any right to be.
Ordinarily, at this state, the appellants would be sitting pretty, simply pointing to the reasoning of the trial court and throwing up some "me too" argument in support of it, maybe citing a couple more cases. Instead, they have to defend Chuppery.
Random note: no mention of hanleia's fake story in the filing. Which is good, since it can be used as a distraction from the core of what the defendants did.
While I would have liked to see that in a footnote at least, the word count means there is no room for deviation from the core arguments and facts. Only what is necessary gets in.
In other administrivia, here is the word limit rule:
"A brief and response in an appellate court (other than a brief under subparagraph (A)) and a petition and response in an original proceeding in the court of appeals: 15,000 words if computer generated, and 50 pages if not. In a civil case in the court of appeals, the aggregate of all briefs filed by a party must not exceed 27,000 words if computer generated, and 90 pages if not." TRAP 9.4(2)(B).
And: "This document complies with the form requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4 and contains 11,571 words (except for those items excluded by Rule 9.4(h)(1))." This leaves 3,429 words for their reply to the defendant's response.
